Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

Yes, I largely agree with the last two posts.

Perhaps something like,
The societal benefits of promoting and wearing bicycle helmets, are disputed and being reviewed, therefore the choice of whether to wear one is left to the individual. Children if wearing one, are advised to remove it when not actually cycling.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm not a member of the Charity Conversion Re-enactment Society but IIRC from SimonL6's posts, the Charities Commission wrote to the leadership of what was then the CTC to warn them that the proposed constitution did not comply with charity law in that the membership of a charity cannot direct the trustees how to act. The CC's interpretation was revealing, in the days when the message was that conversion would mean the status quo with tax benefits. In the context of helmets, therefore, my understanding is that the attitude of the membership is irrelevant to the trustees and their legal duties.

One recent consideration for all charities in receipt of any grants from public funds is that strings are now attached to prevent the money being used to campaign against government policy. However, as Steve76 pointed out above, getting more people cycling is a government policy which is closely aligned with the charitable purposes of Cycling UK. To the extent that compulsory helmet wearing has been demonstrated to be a barrier to getting people cycling, then it's DafT (Department for Transport) and the Driving Standards Agency who are out-of-step.

In the 1988 HC consultation, the CTC petition gained huge support - admittedly not about helmets - so it would be a pity if that support has dwindled. I can see, however, that going by the lack of interest on this forum, there's little stomach for campaigning.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Jdsk »

Please can someone post a link to Cycling UK's response on this point in the recent consultation.

I thought that I'd seen it but now I can't find it.

Thankyou

Jonathan
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by RickH »

Jdsk wrote: 4 Jan 2022, 6:23pm Please can someone post a link to Cycling UK's response on this point in the recent consultation.

I thought that I'd seen it but now I can't find it.

Thankyou

Jonathan
Is this

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... cycling-uk

Or one, or more, of the links in it what you are looking for?
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Jdsk »

RickH wrote: 4 Jan 2022, 6:29pm
Jdsk wrote: 4 Jan 2022, 6:23pm Please can someone post a link to Cycling UK's response on this point in the recent consultation.

I thought that I'd seen it but now I can't find it.
Is this

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... cycling-uk

Or one, or more, of the links in it what you are looking for?
Thankyou.

That doesn't include anything on helmets. The outlinks which I expected to lead to more detail only connect to a feedback page.

Were helmets mentioned in the response?

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... de_con.pdf

RULE 59, paragraph 3
The opening words of this paragraph should be amended to say "Consider wearing a cycle helmet..."
Also, in the following sentence, change "It will reduce" to "It may reduce..." (or "it can reduce...").
We urge these changes for the following reasons:
* There is unclear and contradictory evidence on the safety benefits of cycle helmets, a point partially
recognised in the proposed wording "in certain circumstances". We welcome the addition of these words.
* By contrast though, there is compelling evidence of the negative effects of telling people they 'should'
wear cycle helmets, even where this amounts to moral pressure (e.g. via a non-compulsory rule in the
Highway Code) rather than actual statutory laws. There is overwhelming evidence that the health benefits
of cycling far outweigh the risks involved - see summary on pp8-9 of Cycling UK's briefing on cycling and
health (www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/d ... rv_brf.pdf). From this, it can be
shown beyond any reasonable doubt that it would only take a tiny reduction in cycle use before the
resulting loss of cycling's health benefits would outweigh any possible safety benefits to the remaining
(helmet-wearing) cyclists. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1368064 (n.b. the
paper focuses primarily on helmet laws but also covers the impact of non-compulsory helmet
campaigns), or a summary of this important paper's argument in Appendix A of Cycling UK's briefing
'Cycle Helmets: an overview of the evidence'
(www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/d ... _brf_0.pdf).
* Even if the above point was not the case, the Government should still take account of the prejudicial
legal impact of a Highway Code rule saying that cyclists "should" wear a helmet. This wording has made
it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury
to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim -
see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the
most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised
cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend
years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory
negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and
wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling
injuries.
* Finally, the word "may" (or "can") rather than "will" (before "reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury
in certain circumstances") reflects the uncertainty over the protective effect of helmets, and the possible
reasons why they may also increase the risk of injury (including neck injury) in certain circumstances. The
word "may" would reflect the fact that there are no circumstances in which it could be confidently claimed
that helmets "will" reduce a cyclists' risk of head injury, and that there are some circumstances in which
the opposite might be true. The proposed amendment to the preceding paragraph of this rule (concerning
the potential benefits of light-coloured or fluorescent clothing) uses the word "can". It would be misleading
to imply that the evidence for the benefits of helmets is any more certain than that for light or fluorescent
clothing. For more on the complexity of the evidence relating to helmets, see
www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/d ... _brf_0.pdf.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 4 Jan 2022, 6:23pm Please can someone post a link to Cycling UK's response on this point in the recent consultation.

I thought that I'd seen it but now I can't find it.
Thankyou

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:19pm
pjclinch wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:03pm (...)
Maybe it's just a difference in reading, but I don't see https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets as CUK just keeping their head down

Pete
Great stuff but who is paying attention? I'm talking about effective lobbying.
I do think we should be a little grateful for what CTC have done in this area. Plenty of cyclists out there want mandatory helmets. Look at what this lot voted for:
viewtopic.php?t=148961
If cyclists are forcing this on each-other, what do you expect from CTC??
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

If that's directed to me, I tried to make myself clear above

viewtopic.php?p=1663472#p1663472

The Cycling UK trustees are not bound by the views - commonsense or otherwise - of helmeteers.

Now, if cyclists as a "community" to use the lingo aren't convinced about the need to campaign then I'm stumped. I'm truly grateful for the campaigning activities of the CTC when there was pressure to get cyclists out of the road altogether. (I appreciate some feel that was misguided, which is their privilege.)
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 3:13pm If that's directed to me, I tried to make myself clear above

viewtopic.php?p=1663472#p1663472

The Cycling UK trustees are not bound by the views - commonsense or otherwise - of helmeteers.

Now, if cyclists as a "community" to use the lingo aren't convinced about the need to campaign then I'm stumped. I'm truly grateful for the campaigning activities of the CTC when there was pressure to get cyclists out of the road altogether. (I appreciate some feel that was misguided, which is their privilege.)
Bear in mind that CTC and cyclists are not very well integrated.
"In the 1988 HC consultation, the CTC petition gained huge support - admittedly not about helmets - so it would be a pity if that support has dwindled. I can see, however, that going by the lack of interest on this forum, there's little stomach for campaigning."

Also bear in mind that large numbers of forum members enjoy little more than slagging off CTC.

We're probably both wanting the same thing, but I'm not sure your comments above are going to get us there, Brother!
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm happy to confirm that I am generally against the antiquated concept of charity and more specifically I opposed the CTC charity conversion, but I really do feel I'm one to move on, now the decision is history. All I'm saying is that charitable status gives the trustees an opportunity to ignore the helmet lobby and indeed possibly a legal duty to oppose it.

Whether that will achieve anything is unknown, but I'm confidant that the less is done, the less will change.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

Suggestion to change the wording in the HC to,

If wearing a cycle helmet please ensure that it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet may reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances, however, some studies find no effect or even a negative effect.

Would this be more informative to the public?

it now states,
You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances
The suggestion avoids using the word 'Should' and this helps cyclists to gain full compensation, when accidents occur. it also informs the public that the evidence is mixed.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

A quick search of the Code reinforces my suspicions that "please" is not a word that fits its style or intent.
It's there to tell you stuff, not make polite requests or give you equivocal exposition.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 7:12am A quick search of the Code reinforces my suspicions that "please" is not a word that fits its style or intent.
It's there to tell you stuff, not make polite requests or give you equivocal exposition.
Yes.

But the more I look at the current wording the less satisfactory it appears.

Jonathan
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 9:28am
pjclinch wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 7:12am A quick search of the Code reinforces my suspicions that "please" is not a word that fits its style or intent.
It's there to tell you stuff, not make polite requests or give you equivocal exposition.
Yes.

But the more I look at the current wording the less satisfactory it appears.
Fair comment. The current wording is ridiculous and doesn't fit at all. But rather than trying to wrest it in to some kind of shape it should just be cut out.

Trying to tell a complex story in a couple of lines isn't going to work.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Post Reply